Haymond v. State, 55758

Decision Date09 October 1985
Docket NumberNo. 55758,55758
Citation478 So.2d 297
PartiesWillie James HAYMOND v. STATE of Mississippi.
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

John W. Christopher, Canton, for appellant.

Edwin Lloyd Pittman, Atty. Gen., by Billy L. Gore, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.


SULLIVAN, Justice, for the Court:

In the Circuit Court of Madison County, Mississippi, Willie James Haymond was convicted of the crime of kidnapping and attempted unnatural intercourse. He was sentenced to fifteen years for the kidnapping, and five years for the unnatural intercourse.

He assigns two errors on appeal.

I. That the court erred in overruling his motion for a directed verdict at the conclusion of the state's case; and

II. That the jury verdict of guilty in both of these causes is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence and contrary to law.


Haymond and the victim met and struck up a casual conversation at a reservoir night spot during the late evening hours of June 11, 1983. Haymond asked the victim if he would give him a ride home, and the victim agreed to do so.

At Haymond's request the victim drove him to the city of Ridgeland, where Haymond changed his mind and solicited a ride to the home of his aunt. The victim acquiesced, and with Haymond giving directions drove to a rural area of Madison County in search of the defendant's new and illusive destination.

After much unsuccessful meandering in rural Madison County, the victim reached the conclusion that Haymond did not know where he was going. He informed Haymond that he was going to take him to Haymond's home and attempted to speed up his automobile.

Haymond immediately pointed to a secluded driveway which was barricaded by a padlocked metal gate and ordered the victim to stop the automobile and to back the vehicle into the driveway. When the victim refused to do so, Haymond pushed him to the side of the car, took charge of the controls, and backed the automobile into the driveway.

Haymond told the victim to remove his clothes. When the victim declined to do so, Haymond told him that if he knew what was good for him he would take off his clothes. The victim, who testified he was small in stature and not a fighter, removed his clothing. Haymond proceeded to engage in oral copulation with the victim. When the victim was not responsive to these advances, Haymond then attempted to mount the victim from the rear. To avoid this, the victim somersaulted out of the open car door and fled into the nearby woods, clad only in his socks.

After a cursory search for the victim and entreaties for him to return to the automobile, Haymond took the automobile and fled the area.




Haymond argues that the court erred in overruling his motion for a directed verdict on the charge of kidnapping, because the state failed to prove one of the essential elements, namely that the victim must be secretly confined against his will.

In Brewer v. State, 459 So.2d 293 (Miss.1984), this Court set out the elements of kidnapping, as follows:

In Hughes v. State, 401 So.2d 1100, p. 1105 (Miss.1981), we stated:

... In order to clearly set forth the different elements which may constitute kidnapping under the statute, we restate the statute as follows:

Every person who shall, without lawful authority,

(1) forcibly seize and confine any other,

(2) or shall inveigle or kidnap any other

(3) with intent

(a) to cause such person to be secretly confined or imprisoned in the state against his will,

(b) or to cause such other person to be sent out of this state against his will,

(c) or to cause such other person

(1) to be deprived of his liberty,

(2) or in any way held to service against his will ...

Under the statute the state must prove that a person, without lawful authority, either (1) forcibly seized and confined another person, or (2) inveigled or kidnapped another person, intending to subject such person to either (a), (b) or (c) above.

Brewer at 296.

Turning to the facts, we note that: Haymond misled the victim in asking him to take him to his aunt's house and winding up on a secluded country road; Haymond forcibly grabbed the steering wheel and pulled the car off the road into a secluded driveway barricaded by a padlocked metal gate against the victim's wishes; and Haymond struck the victim on the head and behind the neck. When Haymond took control of the automobile with mischief in mind and forcibly backed it off the road, the victim literally became a prisoner in his own vehicle and his gratuitous undertaking to take Haymond home ended abruptly. At this point, the victim was forcibly detained, secretly confined and imprisoned against his will in a rural area of Madison County.

"A person may be secretly confined in a motor vehicle while it is in motion on the highways of the state or parked in a secluded area." Woods v. State, 393 So.2d 1319, 1324 (Miss.1981).


In arguing this point, Haymond attempts to mislead the Court down a path distinguishing between unnatural intercourse as sodomy per os and sodomy per anus.

This argument overlooks the fact that Haymond was indicted for the attempted unnatural intercourse per anus and not for the partially successful sodomy per os.

We need not discuss the question of whether or not sodomy per os is punishable under Mississippi Code Annotated Sec. 97-29-59 (1972). Sodomy per anus is proscribed by that section, as was pointed out in State v. Mays, 329 So.2d 65 (Miss.1976).

Bucklew v. State, 206 So.2d 200 (Miss.1968), sets out the test for an attempt to commit a crime. We stated,

Under the general law, it has been pointed out that an attempt to commit a crime consists of three elements: (1) An intent to commit a particular crime; (2) a direct ineffectual act done towards its commission; and (3) the failure to consummate its commission.

Id. at 202. See also, Mason v. State, 430 So.2d 857 (Mis...

To continue reading

Request your trial
50 cases
  • SB v. LW
    • United States
    • Mississippi Court of Appeals
    • March 13, 2001
    ...than ten years." That statute has been held to apply to homosexual acts. See Miller v. State, 636 So.2d 391 (Miss.1994); Haymond v. State, 478 So.2d 297 (Miss.1985); State v. Mays, 329 So.2d 65 (Miss.1976). Looking to these cited authorities and to the United Stated Supreme Court case of Bo......
  • Williams v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • October 7, 1987
    ...intoxicated condition; and the fourth when she was dragged or carried into the woods from the truck. Unlike the victim in Haymond v. State, 478 So.2d 297 (Miss.1985), Karon Pierce was never comandeered against her will in the truck. She apparently was a willing participant until the fourth ......
  • Turner v. State, 97-KA-00605-SCT.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • August 27, 1998
    ...at 1259 (quoting Boyd v. State, 523 So.2d 1037, 1040 (Miss.1988); Stever v. State, 503 So.2d 227, 230 (Miss.1987); Haymond v. State, 478 So.2d 297, 299 (Miss. 1985)). In the case sub judice, the State presented the testimony of John Williamson that Williamson found Turner sitting in the tru......
  • Birkley v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • December 2, 1999
    ...at 1259 (quoting Boyd v. State, 523 So.2d 1037, 1040 (Miss.1988); Stever v. State, 503 So.2d 227, 230 (Miss.1987); Haymond v. State, 478 So.2d 297, 299 (Miss. 1985)). Turner v. State, 721 So.2d 642, 648 (Miss. ¶ 36. In the case sub judice, the State presented the testimony of Speed who iden......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT